Talk:Immigration

Resources for immigration policy (many organizations are biased, but their studies are still worthy of investigation):

-Center for Immigration Studies--Anhhung18901 21:17, 13 December 2005 (MST)

Tracking

I'm not convinced that tracking immigrants is so important, and I believe that the problem with immigration is not so much that people are immigrating, but the rate at which our society is able to absorb them. Rather than spending so much time, money, and energy trying to keep them out, shouldn't we focus on helping them find quality living situations and jobs?

Shouldn't we be doing everything we can to encourage quality living in their homelands, rather than hunt them down like dogs in the desert, only to send them back through the dangerous revolving door?

How much money would tracking cost? Don't you think that could be better spent on programs that have a real chance at solving some of the tough challenges that immigration presents?

The fact is, most immigrants are not terrorists and criminals. They're just people trying to find quality of life and feed their hungry families. Treating them like criminals is not a quality solution. Dilvie 21:49, 14 September 2005 (MDT)

I believe a biometric identification program should be introduced for US citizens. Those that illegally immigrate can be identified by their lack of recorded ID. --Beachy 04:56, 5 January 2006 (MST)

I believe that a biometric id program is a serious threat to individual liberties and privacy, and I would fight tooth and nail against it. Dilvie 11:39, 17 March 2006 (MST)

I side with Dilvie on this issue. We shouldn't have to give up additional privacy to deal with border security.--pashdown 11:44, 3 April 2006 (MDT)

Fence?

That said, illegal immigration poses a serious threat to America's national security. Mexican gangs, drug runners, and coyotes currently violate our boarders at will. This must be stopped. Increased funding and manpower for the Border Patrol have consistantly failed to meet this objective. The only illegal immigration counter-measure that has met with wide success is the fence currently errected allong parts of the border. This fence must be extended across the entire border in order to make all of America safer. [moved from article page]

Has anyone investigated the costs of doing this? It would seem to me that it would be significant. Higher than any sort of patrol and monitoring.--pashdown 16:48, 23 November 2005 (MST)

"Rep. Virgil Goode, R-Virginia, is seeking $2 billion to build a fence along the border with Mexico...Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Thursday that fencing didn't make sense in deserts. 'A wall across the border would be phenomenally expensive,' he told reporters, and 'it wouldn't be particularly effective'"(http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/01/congress.immigrants.ap/index.html).--Anhhung18901 21:27, 13 December 2005 (MST)

As long as people can climb, a fence will surely be useless..? Fencing seems a very crude solution to the problem. I believe an enforced national ID system would be more effective in tracking illegal immigrants --Beachy 04:53, 5 January 2006 (MST)

So you would sacrifice your own privacy and let the government track every movement you make in order to demonize anybody who isn't being tracked and monitored like criminals? I'm sure many people have credit cards. Credit card purchases are watched closely by credit card companies for anomalies in user buying habits. This happens automatically. If you do something drastically different from what you would normally do, it sets off a red flag for possible credit card fraud. In a world full of biometric ID's, something similar will happen in law enforcement. The moment you agree to biometric ID, you open yourself up to automated and arbitrary scrutiny. This would be a very grave step towards totalitarian government, and the rape of individual liberty. Dilvie 11:48, 17 March 2006 (MST)

In my opinion the "fence" would be an enormously expensive, and highly ineffective tool for controlling illegal immigration. Please consider:

1. About one-third of those who immigrate illegally are not Latin-Americans. Most of the remaining third are Canadians. The "fence" does not apply in any way to control the illegal immigration of this third.
2. According to most estimates, between 40% and 60% of all illegal immigrants enter legally, but then simply stay, thereby becoming illegal. That being the case, of the remaining 66%, only about half would be in any way effected by the "fence" - or about 33% of all illegal immigrants.
3. When an illegal alien is captured trying to cross the border, that person is returned to his country of origin. In many, if not most cases, that person will simply turn around and try again, and again, and again, until he or she is successful. Statistics are difficult to come by, but for sake of ease let's assume that 50% of illegals who are apprehended simply give up and remain in their country of origin, while the remaining 50% continue to attempt a crossing until they are successful. If this is true, then the "fence" is only effective for one half of the remaining 33% of illegal aliens, or about 16% of all illegal immigrants.
4. It is a certainty that the fence can never be 100% effective at stopping every crossing. For example, even the most draconian fence proposals, such as the one recently passed in the U.S. House, don't suggest that the fence should cover the entirety of the U.S./Mexican border, simply because of the remoteness and difficulty of the terrain. For sake of simplicity, let's assume the fence is effective 50% of the time.

Summary: Rough calculations based on reasonable assumptions lead one to believe that the "fence" would only impede the crossing of 8% of all illegal immigrants. Is that really worth the money? (Comments by Laurence Burton, moved from blog)

Thorny Issue

Immigration reform is a hugely complex problem and very near and dear to people in Utah, since we are definitely a destination spot for a lot of Mexican and Central American immigrants. I'm a lifelong Democrat and I don't know exactly where I stand on the issue. In an ideal world, everyone would patiently wait to enter this country, and once here would make a concerted attempt to assimilate on a functional level, i.e. learn English. However this is not an ideal world, and the issues here run deep and are greatly emotional.

Even the Republican party is widely split on what to do, unfortunately their division seems to run along two lines. 1. The big-business Republicans whom Bush has just made a paean to with his "guest worker program" who need cheap labor for menial jobs. This especially includes big agri-business who need migrant workers to harvest crops. 2. The cultural isolationists who simply resent the fact that government publications need to be printed in Spanish.

I think that a prudent Democrat would eschew both approaches, and call for expanding and simplifying legal immigration, and perhaps encourage and promote ESL and naturalization prep education. I also think that any talk of quotas will enrage most Republicans and large numbers of swing voters. So leave that out.--Jdjonsson 14:55, 1 December 2005 (MST)

Some people cross the border illegally to have children in our country. They know that citizenship is granted to all those who are born within the country's borders. I personally do not mind this approach, but other countries do things differently. For instance, in Switzerland citizenship is not granted on the basis that someone was born within Swiss borders; in fact, when immigrants apply for citizenship their pictures are hung around their area just like a political candidate runs for office here in the US. People then vote them off the island or to grant them citizenship. If we didn't grant citizenship based on birthplace, then that may change the attraction of our country to some foreigners. I am not supporting or rejecting this idea, but I feel that it would spark an important discussion in our country. The immigration issue would serve as important contemporary context for this delicate issue.--Anhhung18901 21:10, 13 December 2005 (MST)

Department of Defense?

Isn't the Border Patrol part of the Department of Homeland Security?

Yes, go to http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=13 for a list of Department of Homeland Security organizations. --Anhhung18901 19:39, 4 December 2005 (MST)

My reasoning here is that the DoD has experience, people, and equipment for patrolling borders. I don't think DoHS has predator drones.--pashdown 12:25, 13 January 2006 (MST)

Common Good

At this time,immigration is an issue for discussion, not action. Immigration is a unique issue in that, neither of the two dominant parties have taken definitive stances for or against it. Immigration and its systemic effects should be studied and discussed by the individuals who are affected by immigrants, which is all of us. Representatives are not capable of deciding what should or should not be done in regard to immigration policy, without increased amounts of education. Not only education for those governing, but education of the public as a whole. Our immigration policy must be representative of the common good for the American people. It would seem the common good for the American people toward immigration is a policy that promotes economic benefits for all citizens, protects national security interests, and upholds notions of civic equality, and political equity among immigrants, and non-immigrants alike. The process in which our immigration policies are currently formed is not egalitarian since it is not representative of the centrist majority opinion; the process does not promote civic participation; and the processes and policies in turn, do not uphold and instill upon citizens any recognition of the aforementioned common good.

Comparison to European System

I was interested in the Fareed Zakaria/Jon Stewart conversation about how legislators are trying to bend the American system of immigration into the utterly-dysfunctional European-style system of immigration. What are some of the flaws and failures of the European system?

For starters some European governments don't allow immigrants to truly assimilate. The riots among the Muslim youth in France several months ago are clear manifestations of this. In our country, we sometimes have trouble getting people to assimilate, but at least we don't prohibit them from doing so. I feel that we need to encourage immigrants to adopt American culture and English, but at the same time we shouldn't forbid them from preserving their heritage as long as it doesn't inhibit their social mobility -- including their children’s. As a country we should embrace diversity, not demonizing it. In France, only French culture can exist. Everything else is second-class at best.--Anhhung18901 20:17, 3 April 2006 (MDT)

I think in Switzerland they post pictures of foreigners applying for citizenship all over the place, and the citizens vote on whether or not to extend each individual citizenship or not. Just like politicians and Survivor (minus the campaign propaganda)! I'm unsure if that is a flaw or not, but it is a novel idea.--Anhhung18901 20:17, 3 April 2006 (MDT)

Europe only has an immigration problem because now there is a "European Union". Before the immigration problem would have been distinct for each individual sovereignty. For example, Germans might have complained about Spanish immigrants, but now have no right to do so. Spaniards can go to Germany, now, as easily as folks from Nebraska can come to Utah, and I have seen nothing that says anything is worse off for it.

Is there a lesson there for us? If there was a North American Union there would be almost no illegal aliens in it, including in our country. (I wonder what we would find to bitch about next.)

It was actually quite an awe inspiring event when our country added its 49th and 50th stars. Wouldn't it be weird if Alaska and Hawaii were something other than part of this nation? And at the time no one would have even guessed that we would go for a period of time longer than any other in our history without any geographical growth. Certainly no one would have guessed then that the European Nations (folks who had actively fought a couple of World Wars amongst themselves) would figure out how to get along with each other sooner than we could come up with a formal plan for working with our nearest neighbors to build better lives for all of us.

Just a thought.

Problems with current proposals

One thing that occured to me yesterday watching a debate with Cannon and Jacobs is that many solutions fly in the face of the 14th amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Many people are stating we need to do away with "anchor babies" yet it appears to me that it would take a constitutional amendment to do so. Others state that illegal aliens should not receive medical or public schooling, but would that abridge their right to life and liberty?

I am against the idea of wholesale amnesty. Individuals seeking citizenship who have not done so need to take their place in line. However, the other issues they face while standing in line are more problematic.--pashdown 10:07, 11 June 2006 (MDT)